As is well established, and as the Department of Justice has articulated across several administrations, the Constitution vests the president, as commander in chief and chief executive, with the power to direct limited U.S. The Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war, a power that includes the requirement to authorize uses of force that would result in prolonged and substantial military engagements. Separately, under what circumstances, if any, would you support - and sign into law if Congress were to pass it - legislation repealing the 2001 A.U.M.F.? Separately, administrations of both parties have stretched their interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to claim that Congress has already granted permission for war against entities and in places other than the original Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, like ISIS and Al Shabab in Somalia.ĭo you agree with the O.L.C.’s reasoning about the president’s unilateral constitutional authority to use military force? Under what circumstances other than a literally imminent threat to the United States, if any, does the Constitution permit a president to order an attack on another country without prior congressional authorization? Please address whether bombing Iranian or North Korean nuclear facilities would qualify. In recent years, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has claimed that the Constitution authorizes the president, as commander in chief, to direct the military to attack other countries without congressional permission if the president determines that this would serve the national interests of the United States and the nature, scope and duration of the anticipated hostilities are “limited,” like airstrikes against Libyan government forces in 2011 and Syrian government forces in 20.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |